PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 16
K, a research scientist, was accused of having(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AL, an accountant,(43 more words not shown)
- BM, a factory(38 more words not shown)
- CN, a social(37 more words not shown)
- DO, an auto(39 more words not shown)
- EP, a politician,(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
K could have falsified the old data and done honest work ever since. Finding nothing wrong with the recent experiments doesn't settle what happened in the experiment we're actually investigating.
The missing data don't settle it either. Maybe K destroyed them to hide something; maybe they disappeared for an innocent reason. We haven't proved K guilty. But we also haven't cleared K just by checking different work.
What we’re looking for
For a matching argument, keep track of what each piece is doing: someone faces an accusation, the evidence needed to investigate that particular accusation is unavailable, and evidence from other cases shows no wrongdoing. Then the author uses those clean cases to dismiss the original accusation. We want another argument that makes that same mistake, even if it puts the pieces in a different order.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
L is accused of stealing from one client, just as K is accused of falsifying particular data. The records that could reveal the theft are gone, just as the original laboratory data are gone. L's current clients haven't been robbed, just as K's recent experiments haven't been falsified. And both authors treat that later clean record as a reason to dismiss the earlier accusation. An accountant could steal from one client and leave the others' money alone. The conclusion appears earlier in A, but the reasoning matches.
- B
This author wants the accusation discussed, not dismissed. The survey also reveals actual safety violations, which gives us something to investigate. We aren't using a clean record in other cases to clear the supervisor in the disputed case.
- C
The timing bears directly on the alleged copying: N's work was already published before the other scholar wrote the similar work. That challenges the idea that N copied that particular work. It isn't an argument that N must be innocent here because N behaved honestly on other occasions.
- D
This author supports the accusation. The distribution pattern is offered as evidence pointing toward O, despite the lack of a direct link. Our author instead dismisses an accusation based on evidence that different conduct was innocent.
- E
This is about people disagreeing over what protecting the public interest even means. Some may reject the accusation because they judge P's conduct by a different standard. There is no missing evidence about a particular incident and no clean record from other incidents being used to clear P.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.